(cont. from § 13) Road safety (cont. TU14)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I listened carefully to Member Lifvenhage's speech, and I can agree with much of what she set out.

My question concerns the work towards achieving the zero vision regarding the number of those killed and injured in traffic. We are very successful in Sweden. Just as the member said, we are leading in the world, and we should be proud of that. This is due to long-term work. It is, however, clear that we will not reach the interim goal for 2030 regarding the number of those killed and injured in traffic. In 2024, just over 200 died in traffic, and then there is still a good way to go to the goal of 133 killed in traffic in 2030. It is admittedly a few years left, but it is still a quite large gap.

Can Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage elaborate on what the government intends to do?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank the member for the question.

I do not believe there is any quick fix to reach the goal. But the goal is extremely important, and we need to work with many pieces to get there. Technological development, including safer vehicles, contributes. The right speed is also important, and such a simple thing as a median strip, which gives road users crossing over to the wrong side the opportunity to correct their driving. Pedestrian protection is also incredibly important to prevent suicides in traffic. Every piece is needed for us to be able to reach the objective.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! In 2024, 210 people died in traffic, and the goal for 2030 is 133.

What Member Lifvenhage enumerates is something that is already being done. But obviously that is not enough, so the pace must increase so that we can bring down the number of deaths. I think the government should be able to be more proactive and offensive when it comes to taking responsibility and showing political leadership in these issues.

The Social Democrats, together with the Centre Party and the Green Party, have a reservation regarding the importance of not only looking at the zero vision from the aspect of reducing the number of deaths in traffic, but one also needs to look at the number of deaths caused by traffic. We know that many people die unnecessarily every year due to noise, particles, and air pollution, and last year the Swedish Transport Administration reported that emissions in Sweden increased by 18 percent.

What does the government want to do more, and what does the government want to do to reduce air pollution?

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Madam Speaker! As has been said, there is no quick fix. Regarding the measures we are working on, I highlighted one in my speech, namely the belt in Attractors. I do not even want to think about how many lives we could have saved if this decision had been made significantly earlier.

Technological development provides the opportunity to travel more protected and safely in the vehicles we have, and when it comes to self-driving vehicles, the development may not be avalanche-like but is very fast.

I am convinced that all these pieces together are important steps to reach the goal. It will become safer and more secure in traffic. It is also a matter of preventing suicide in and through traffic.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! The report on road safety addresses a number of important issues. Today, I want to highlight some particularly prioritized areas where, in my opinion, the development is heading in the wrong direction or perhaps is not moving forward fast enough. Here, the government has a clear responsibility to act.

We in the Social Democrats stand behind all our reservations in the committee report, but we move for approval only of reservation 1 under point 1 regarding the zero vision and reservation 6 under point 4 regarding measures against alcohol and drugs in traffic.

Madam Speaker! A safe traffic environment is a common concern. The Government and the Riksdag have a special and great responsibility, but also other authorities, organizations, and we as individual road users and residents play a decisive role.

Sweden is nationally recognized as a pioneer in road safety. We have the EU's lowest traffic mortality. The Zero Vision has contributed to that, and it has inspired the world.

The systematic and preventive work has been crucial, with safer vehicles, better roads, traffic safety cameras, and education. Trafikverket has since 2019 coordinated extensive work through the action plan for safe road traffic. Between 2022 and 2025, it includes 250 measures where issues such as correct speed and sober traffic are some of the sub-areas.

Mr. Speaker, despite all this good work, it is not enough. The interim targets for 2030 are at risk. The previous, Social Democratic-led government decided in 2020 on a new interim target: to halve the number of fatalities in all types of traffic by 2030 and to reduce the number of seriously injured by at least 25 percent. For road traffic, this means that the number of fatalities must not exceed 133 people in 2030, as I said earlier, but during 2024, 210 people died, according to Trafikverket's own statistics. It shows that we still have some way to go.

The Swedish Transport Agency's follow-up also shows that the current pace of development is insufficient. More people must do more if we are to reach the goals. A political leadership that prioritizes road safety is needed. Traffic does not only harm people in the form of accidents, but it also causes death and illness through particles, noise, and emissions. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute has shown that nearly 7,000 people in Sweden die prematurely every year as a result of poor air quality. That is many more than those who die in traffic itself.

The transport sector accounts for nearly a third of Sweden's emissions, and in 2024, emissions from road traffic increased by a full 18 percent, according to the Swedish Transport Administration's report. Therefore, we Social Democrats believe that the zero vision needs to be developed. We want to see an ambitious goal to also reduce the number of those killed by traffic, not just in traffic.

The safety of those who work by the roads deserves more attention. A 2024 survey from the trade union Seko shows that a full 89 percent of the members who responded to the survey – nearly 1,000 members – feel concern for their own safety when they work on or by the road. It is completely unacceptable. There are far too many drivers who drive too fast, who are careless, and who do not show necessary consideration.

The government must take this most seriously. Those who enable our access to functioning roads and infrastructure must be able to feel safe at work. They must be able to get home after work. The action plan for increased security must be implemented and developed. The government therefore needs to consider harsher penalties, increased surveillance, and more inspections by Arbetsmiljöverket.

Madam Speaker! Reducing drunk driving is one of the most effective measures to save lives. We therefore need to give the police better tools to detect drug-impaired drivers, just as they already have today for alcohol impairment. Therefore, it is positive that the pilot project with routine eye examinations has been introduced. More checks shall be able to be carried out even without concrete suspicion of a crime, in the same way as for breathalyzer tests for alcohol. It is about safety, preventive work, and road safety.

Madam Speaker! I have raised this before, but I think it deserves to be said again: Road safety is also an equality issue. In the budget bill for 2025, the government notes that women experience the transport system as less safe than men. Men are at the same time heavily overrepresented both among drivers who drive while intoxicated and among those who die in traffic.

Trafikverket has had a mandate since 2022 to gender-integrate the road safety work. It is important that this perspective becomes a natural part of all long-term planning of the transport infrastructure, even after the mandate is completed in 2025.

A concrete example is crash safety. In 2023, the world's first crash dummy representing female anatomy was presented, developed under the leadership of Professor Astrid Linder at VTI. It is a big step, but it is not reasonable that car safety for decades has assumed that all drivers are men. We want the government, through the Transport Agency, to push for changes to the rules within the UN Economic Commission for Europe so that both male and female crash dummies are used in tests. Or as Professor Astrid Linder herself expresses it: It is difficult to say how long it will take, but it is a significantly smaller step than giving women the right to vote.

Madam Speaker! The work for road safety must be intensified. The Government must take greater responsibility, provide clearer priorities and ensure that we have the right tools, the right legislation and the right objective. It is about people's lives.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the speech!

The Leader says they are keen on reaching the goals, which the government with the Moderates at the forefront welcomes. It is joint efforts towards the goals that are crucial. But goals in all their glory – it is active actions that lead to goal fulfillment, not always wishes.

With this in mind, I would like to ask how it is that the member's party, the Social Democrats, for example, has not moved from words to action earlier by enacting legislation on seatbelt requirements for our most vulnerable young drivers who travel while practicing in traffic, or by prioritizing maintenance so that our roads are in such good condition that accidents are avoided. It is primarily two-wheeled vehicles with, again, the most unprotected road users who risk driving into a larger or smaller pothole and thus being involved in an accident.

Goals are important, but action is more important.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! We welcome all the changes that have been made in the area of road safety regarding Attractors; I want to be clear about that.

I also want to say that the national plan that applies for a while longer is based on initiatives on road safety. It is not a wish list. One needs to have clear goals to be able to orient oneself somewhat as to where one is headed. Based on those goals, one then needs to develop action plans and measures that ensure one can count on reaching the goals. That is not what the current government is doing. With the work that the government is currently undertaking, the goals will not be reached.

I will think of Alice in Wonderland, Madam Speaker. I do not know if it is really as it is written in the book, but when Alice falls down into Wonderland she asks the Cheshire Cat: Which way should I take? The cat asks where she is going, and Alice answers: I don't know. The cat says: Then it doesn't matter which way you take.

I think the government is responsible for this.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage (M)

Madam Speaker! I hear that the member is pleased that the Moderate-led government has ensured that we now have belt requirements, and it is something I am pleased that we agree on.

The Chairman pointed out in an earlier exchange in this debate that more parameters should be included in the zero vision. I did not have time to respond to that part. But for us, it is important that the zero vision is clear and that we have measurability in the goals we have. We see the work efforts being made – Trafikverket, Transportstyrelsen and Trafikanalys are working systematically with precisely analyses to develop traffic safety. Should one then include more and broaden the zero vision to cover everything?

These are absolutely important issues, but they also belong within environmental policy. For our part, we prefer to keep it pure. Then we can also constantly follow up from one and the same objective and with the same parameters as we have been able to do. This means that we maintain measurability and avoid losing focus, which we risk doing if it becomes too broadened.

It is my answer to the member's previous question.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Ann-Sofie Lifvenhage, for the answer! Now I cannot reciprocate it with a further question.

I do not know if the member implies this. I do not think so; I will not misinterpret it. But there is both research and science and evidence that people die prematurely because of noise, because of airborne particles from road wear, and because of emissions. Last year, emissions from road traffic increased by 18 percent. Then I do not think it holds to say that these might be issues that lie in the environmental area. So it can certainly be that, but our task is to ensure that the policies hang together so that we do not just have a lot of silos. We must actually ensure that the policy areas hang together across this entire area.

It is serious that nearly 7,000 people die in Sweden every year due to poor air quality. It is an issue that I believe the government should take more seriously.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I felt that I had to enter into this discussion. Road safety is an issue that has engaged me for many years.

Just the fact that people are dying in traffic is extremely concerning. It affects families and friends. It affects society, as the accidents are accompanied by large costs. But one needs to keep a bit of track of the arguments.

That the emissions of carbon dioxide have increased by 18 percent has nothing to do with mortality. Carbon dioxide is a gas that is completely necessary for us to be able to live on earth at all, so one should not mix it up in connection with harmful substances.

Should we stick to that, even though this is a road safety debate, I can say that the emissions of particles from heavy road traffic have decreased by 97 percent since 1990. NOx emissions have decreased by 90 percent. It is a dramatic change for the better. It is not good enough, because we can do more. But that road traffic has not taken its responsibility is incorrect.

Just to create some balance in the reasoning, I took out figures on how many people die from smoking in a year. It is 8,000. In addition to that, there are 4,000 who die from smoking-related injuries.

Mixing other things into the road safety debate becomes a bit skewed. People die from a multitude of different causes. But if we are to address what causes people to die in traffic, we must stick to what we can actually influence when it comes to deaths in traffic accidents.

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I did not say that the road traffic has not taken its responsibility. I am saying that the government is not taking its responsibility when it comes to working even more progressively and proactively to reach the zero vision and reduce emissions.

I also did not say, Madam Speaker, that carbon dioxide emissions increased by 18 percent. I said that it was the emissions from road traffic, which, of course, contain more than just carbon dioxide. Right must be right.

Since then, I am very well aware that we have done a fantastic job in Sweden. We are at the forefront, and I think as a Social Democrat that we should also do so in the future.

The proportion of airborne particles has decreased. It is thanks to the introduction of stricter requirements for vehicles, different road surfaces and so on that the proportion of airborne particles has decreased since the 90s, as Member of Parliament Morell says. But that does not mean we can rest on our laurels and think that it is not that dangerous after all.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! No, we will definitely not beat ourselves into submission. But the member refers to a figure of 18 percent, and that concerns carbon dioxide. One is therefore saying indirectly that that was the problem.

It becomes a bit comical in this discussion, because everyone who has followed the debates in the Riksdag over the last few years knows that I have preached that we must get more police out on the road to curb crime on the road. That also includes traffic offenses. After all, it is a crime that one commits.

We also know that when the police are visible on the road, speeds decrease. Consequently, the risk of accidents is reduced, because people do not perform reckless overtaking. Furthermore, the police discover much during checks that is related to people dying in traffic.

If one looks at what is the cause of an accident, what made it occur, one often sees other connections that cause the accident to happen. It is often the case that it is an impaired driver, a driver without a license, or a driver who does not use a seatbelt who is driving around in a decommissioned vehicle that is not inspected. Many of those parts can be pieced together to see what caused the death.

It is here that one must start to step in and take measures to reach the last number of people who die in traffic accidents. There is a large number of people out there who die because of drivers who absolutely should not be on the road. The only way to get them off is to have uniformed personnel on the asphalt. There is no shortcut there.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Carina Ödebrink (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not share Member Morell's view that the only solution if we are to remove drivers from the roads who should not be there is police. We must work broadly with a whole palette of measures so that we as individuals know what applies when we get behind the wheel. This is something we have worked on for a long time, and it is what is proving to be successful. It is not just about police being able to solve the problems. I know that Member Morell thinks this is the only solution.

Now Member Morell cannot answer, but the current government, with the support of the Sverigedemokraterna, has now soon sat for three years. It would be interesting to hear how many more police officers there have been on the roads since the new government took office.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Magnus Jacobsson (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thought I could start by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and rejection of the motions, so I have done so.

In the name of honesty, I must say that when I sat and prepared, I noted that this is probably the debate I find most difficult. Why, Madam Speaker, do I think that this particular debate is so difficult? Yes, because we are so terribly in agreement. That can create a dilemma when one still has to conduct some form of debate that can be interesting for the audience to follow and not just for ourselves.

What do I mean by agreement? After having read the motions in the report, I want to say that I think there are very many good motions. Had we gone back three years, it would have been the other side that had written them. A very large amount of what we will discuss today is such things as are dependent on how much one can get through in a budget process when one is in a government position.

The basic idea itself, the zero vision, we are in very much agreement on. I am, as I said, grateful that we have this debate, where road safety is highlighted, and that we have this great consensus.

Another thing I reflect on, Madam Speaker, is that I got my driver's license sometime in the 80s. Back then, we didn't even have a good system when refueling. I don't know how many people remember it, but it smelled quite bad. Today we have a completely different system, where the fuel enters the car in a safer and more environmentally friendly way. We have more environmentally friendly vehicles. We have wildlife fences, wildlife crossings, and median strips in significantly more places. We have cameras, which I myself perhaps don't always find so fun, but if we are talking about road safety, it is perhaps one of the more important measures that have been taken.

We have built significantly more motorways. I remember when I was a child, traveling from Gullspång or Hova home to relatives in Uddevalla. It was quite cramped down through Skaraborg and down towards Trollhättan and Vänersborg, and one drove in between Halle and Hunneberg. An incredible amount has happened in the years that have passed – we have built away dangerous roads.

Madam Speaker! This means that today we have both safer roads and better traffic safety. We have safer and better roads, and we have better vehicles. Then the debate can sometimes become a little more difficult.

Another exciting thing that has also happened during these years and continues to happen concerns the view on driving licenses. I have a daughter who is going to get a driving license. A completely different set of rules applies to the person who is going to be a supervisor. One is kindly asked to take a course even if one already has a driving license. That was not really the case when father rode with me.

We have the whole situation with Atraktor, where we actually get a new type of driver's license – we have collaborated to get this through. I may personally have some reflections regarding it, especially from an environmental perspective. Note that I said "personally" – someone within the party will probably pull my ear later.

It is clear that light trucks and scooters could perhaps be included in the Bkörkortet. It would have provided completely different conditions in Stockholm to purchase a lighter vehicle and be able to move more smoothly. When we look forward from both an environmental perspective and a traffic safety perspective, we see that there may be measures that could facilitate and reduce the pressure to only drive a car.

Then there are problems – that cannot be avoided. One of the major problems is that while we have built up safety for those of us in cars in many places, we have simultaneously created insecurity for those who ride motorcycles. The median strips catch trucks, but they can also slice a person coming on a motorcycle.

I believe that most of us here would also wish that we could build away all dangers, obstacles, and risks, but we probably will not be able to achieve that. Sweden is a large country, and we have very many roads with different forms of ownership. For example, actually 70 percent of all roads are private roads. Technological development has led to positive things, but it is also about a balance between different types of vehicles. This is something we will probably have to continue to struggle with. That was what I meant in my introduction, Madam Speaker: Quite a lot is about which resources we have the possibility to allocate for this.

When it comes to future possibilities, I am personally completely convinced that digital signs and similar technology will emerge – I saw something from a motioner, but I will, as I said, nevertheless vote in favor of the committee's proposal and against the motions. There is a huge difference between driving on a motorway on a warm summer evening and doing so on a cold day with black ice. It is not guaranteed that the sign tells the truth in every traffic situation.

The question of more police and more controls is something we are driving; we agree on this. I do not have that figure right now, but it is clear that over time we will be able to report what effect the police measures we are undertaking provide.

But – this was also a reflection I made while I was sitting and writing this – I do not believe that politics and the state will be enough if we are to meet the road safety goals. I actually experience that as a road user, one thought a bit less before we started building all the safe roads. I am not ancient but old enough and have driven on roads without wildlife fences at quite high speeds. What did one do then when it was evening and dusk? One slowed down because one realized oneself that it is not very good to drive into a moose. But now we have wildlife fences on more and more miles, and then one does not need to make that reflection. Here I believe it is super important with the cooperation we have with civil society, for example MHF and their test workshop in Tibro, and with the school's work, where one talks about the individual responsibility in traffic.

I do not believe that we politicians, regardless of government, will ever be able to build away every dangerous stretch of road in Sweden. We may have the ambition to do so, but then road traffic will become extremely expensive. And in such cases, it will occur at the expense of other types of traffic. But we can reduce the risk of accidents through personal responsibility. That is why it is so important that we have a completely new driving license training, where one talks much more about alcohol and drugs. One has skid driving, which one did not have previously. A great deal has happened that aims to increase personal responsibility.

Madam Speaker! That is where I, for my part, would like to stop in this debate. We have done a lot together. I believe that we can do even more together regarding both legislation, preventive work, and controls. But ultimately, I believe that you, I, and each and every one of us must also take personal responsibility in traffic, because then fewer people will be injured and, in the worst case, die.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats stand behind all our reservations in the report, but in order to save time during the voting, I move for approval of only reservation 7.

What is road safety? Is it to install automatic speed cameras along our roads or to falsely perform PEth-tests on the population?

Road safety is something we create together – individual citizens, organizations and authorities. It is based on respect and trust for each other's roles. For me, who has devoted nearly all of my adult life to road safety, this issue is important.

In my previous work, I was at several accident sites and met people who had just experienced the worst moments of their lives. The presence of panic, shock, pain, and terror was palpable. For some, life ended right then and there.

I have conducted approximately 300 technical investigations of vehicles to find the answer as to the cause of the accident. Was it the driver, the vehicle, or the road that was the cause of the accident? During a period when the accidents followed one another in rapid succession, it felt like being a traveling salesman in the last two seconds of people's lives. It is precisely there – in those last seconds – that one finds the answer as to the cause of the accident.

Madam Speaker! One of the worst work weeks I have experienced occurred about 20 years ago. In one week, seven people died in traffic accidents in Skaraborg alone. I was to investigate the cause in all of these accidents.

Each of these victims of death has a large circle of people around them. They are parents, children, siblings, relatives and friends. Every death in traffic affects many people, not least those who have to act at the scene of the accident and in the investigation that follows.

Road safety is important and something that concerns and affects us all. Traffic safety cameras are far from the solution. Nor are PEth-tests in the population a solution.

The presence of traffic police is required. They detect impaired drivers. They see illegal maneuvers. They see a number of other traffic offenses. Not least, they find other criminal activity in society. These are serious crimes that an ATK camera completely overlooks.

Madam Speaker! At the beginning of my speech, I requested approval for our reservation 7, under point 4, Measures against alcohol and drugs in traffic. This brings us to recent events, where people have had their driver's licenses revoked due to the so-called PEth tests. The Transport Agency has received extensive criticism for its way of acting when it has revoked driver's licenses for people who have not committed drunk driving. Even doctors have received justified criticism for having taken samples from patients without informing them of this, which is a requirement. The result has been that driver's licenses have been revoked for a large number of people, on very loose grounds.

The storm surrounding the PEth tests caused the Transport Agency to immediately change its routines, which is a sign that something is not right. Furthermore, the police have initiated a preliminary investigation against the Transport Agency regarding official misconduct. Let me be clear on the issue of influenced drivers: They have no business on the road – period.

That the Transport Agency's desk checks would reduce the number of drunk drivers on the roads is nothing more than an academic triviality. Drunk drivers are on our roads even if they lack a driver's license. Combating drunk driving requires a police presence on the roads. Visible police are an effective way to increase road safety, and a bonus is that they simultaneously disrupt the machinery of the criminal networks.

Madam Speaker! Let me return to the reasoning regarding trust. Road safety is built on a mutual trust between the actors. When I underwent my training within the police, one of the core messages was precisely the importance of the public's trust in the authority's actions.

Of course, there were few who cheered when we took measures, but in any case, they should feel that they were treated correctly and that they could trust that we made the right decisions based on the legislation. For the Police Authority, this was very important.

It is precisely here that the Transportstyrelsen's actions have damaged the citizens' trust in authorities. It is a damage that will take many years to repair. Even the trust for healthcare has been damaged because people do not trust the doctors' intentions regarding testing.

People hesitate to seek care because it can have consequences for their driver's license. There are also reports of people avoiding going to blood donation centers to give blood for fear that they will lose their driver's license. We have ended up in a situation where people do not trust our authorities, and it is extremely serious.

Researchers condemn how these PEth samples have been used and argue that it is an abuse of individuals. It is a very strong criticism, which must be taken seriously.

Madam Speaker! In our endeavor to increase road safety, it cannot be accepted that authorities act in a way that undermines trust. It has the exact opposite effect, and we do not reach the citizens. Trust is something that must be nurtured.

I finally want to quote the instructor I had at the police academy – his message has been guiding for me for many years. I also want to take the opportunity to apologize to the Speaker for the language.

This is how the supervisor expressed themselves when I asked if we should report a driver for deficiencies in driving and rest times: "One shall not mess with ordinary people!" As said: Road safety is built on trust.

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Gellerman (L)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating road safety. Road safety is very close to my heart as it was what I worked with before I started in the Riksdag.

Road safety is important. Everyone wants to be able to travel safely from home to work and to school or when they are going to meet relatives and friends or are on holiday. The vehicles must be safe. The roads must have a good standard. The railway crossings must function, and places where one changes modes of transport shall be well-designed for the travelers.

Sweden has for a long time conducted successful road safety work and is among the countries in the world with the lowest number of deaths per inhabitant in traffic. Sweden created the zero vision, a vision that other countries have followed. We have researched and developed systems for cars regarding what is required so that no one dies or is seriously injured in traffic. It yields results.

It is truly pleasing that in 2024 we had the historically lowest number of fatal accidents in road traffic – 210 – if one excludes 2020, when road traffic decreased significantly due to the pandemic.

An accident affects many, not just the injured person. It becomes particularly clear when looking at young people. Unfortunately, the number of deaths among young people and among unprotected road users is not decreasing. Here we must do more. We need to invest in more research on unprotected road users and on new vehicle categories, such as electric scooters, moped cars and also ATVs, as they are increasing in number.

We need to understand the risks and the causes of the accidents. New research shows that the risk of accidents increases six times if one rides an electric scooter with one hand. If one rides in a group or uses a mobile phone, the risk of accidents increases three times. Another interesting detail is that a study shows that electric scooters stand out compared to all other vehicles in one respect. In 20 percent of the safety-critical incidents in the study, the driver deliberately created a risky situation or a collision during the journey. Research provides important information when it comes to taking the right measures.

Moped cars and Atractors have increased the freedom of movement for young people. Young people are more protected in a moped car or in an Atractor than they are on a moped. We Liberals are positive about new technology and increased mobility, but it must not lead to increased personal injuries.

On 15 July 2020, the rules were changed so that the speed of Atraktorer can be regulated digitally. The number of heavier vehicles registered as Atraktorer has increased since then. Unfortunately, the number of traffic accidents has also increased.

In the current situation, twelve hours of training are required, and the driving practice can be done on a two-wheeled moped, even though one is to drive on four wheels afterwards.

Certain rule changes were introduced on 31 August 2023, for example requirements for seat belts, one person per seat, and winter tires. But according to VTI's report in November 2023, this is not sufficient.

The EU has worked on a new driving license directive, which initially looked like it would exclude the A-tractor as a valid vehicle. Here, the old, S-led government could have done more. This government has had to work very hard since the 2022 election so that A-tractors can still be used. That work has yielded results.

The finalized proposal means that a new driving license, B1, shall apply for A-tractors with a maximum speed of 45 kilometers per hour and with a weight of at most 2,500 kilos. Training with a driving test will be required, and the age limit of 15 years remains. That it exists today, we shall therefore thank this government for.

With these new rules, young people can gain increased freedom with hopefully improved road safety. At the same time, we Liberals want the new rules to be followed up after they are introduced in 2028, to see if the road safety for these vehicles has changed.

Madam Speaker! Studies show that the most important causes of traffic accidents are excessive speed, alcohol and other drugs, as well as fatigue and other lack of attention. The human factor lies behind 90 percent of traffic accidents. What can we do about it?

In the question of fatigue and inattention, it is primarily the technological development of our vehicles and information to the drivers that can yield results.

Regarding speed, we politicians can do more. We all know that the consequences of an accident are exacerbated as speed increases. Even greenhouse gas emissions and noise are linked to speed. In addition to personal suffering, the environment is degraded, and society's costs increase.

Madam Speaker! Follow-up and control on the road plays an important role for regulatory compliance. The Liberals want to see more traffic police dedicated to the important traffic control work on the road. Significantly more controls of vehicles and of whether the rules for speed, alcohol use, and driving and rest times are respected are needed. Here, the work with alcohol bombs in our ports is an important piece of the puzzle.

Furthermore, there are many vehicles on Swedish roads, not least foreign ones, that would not pass a technical inspection and which constitute a traffic hazard. Road safety on our roads would be significantly improved by more roadside checks.

To achieve safer roads, we Liberals want that requirements be set in public procurement of transport services that the suppliers' vehicles must maintain the speed limit. This can have a dampening effect on the average speed on our roads and lead to radically reduced emissions.

The speed is also linked to the road's design and condition. Due to too little money for maintenance, Trafikverket has lowered the speed on certain road sections around the country because they do not have an acceptable standard. So we cannot continue. We must have such a road standard that people can get to work safely and in a reasonable time. Road safety should not depend on where one lives.

The Liberals are now, together with our coalition partners, investing more money than ever before on the maintenance of the roads, not least in the countryside where most of the speed reductions have been made. With the decision in the Riksdag on the infrastructure bill, we will be able to rectify 100 percent of the neglected maintenance on our roads.

If we are really to address the human factor, which lies behind 90 percent of the accidents, we need to replace the human driver with self-driving vehicles. The purpose of these vehicles was from the beginning to solve traffic safety. It is only after that one has seen that other societal benefits can be obtained with these vehicles.

We liberals are technology optimists. Development is moving forward. Step by step, active safety systems are being introduced in our vehicles. Fully self-driving cars, however, are still a bit further off in the future. Therefore, we must continue to remove obstacles to test the technology in a real environment.

The Liberals believe, as stated, in the possibilities of technology when it comes to increased traffic safety. That more cars are connected and can share their traffic safety data to, for example, identify ice patches or other cars when visibility is obscured is an advantage. There are countries in Europe that get their weather data entirely from connected cars instead of weather stations. The potential in the information found in today's cars could be utilized significantly better. Rules that hinder development need to be reviewed.

An important part of the work on road safety is access to solid driving education. We need to tackle the illegal driving schools and improve the proportion that pass the theory and driving tests the first time. Otherwise, we risk having an increased number of accidents on the roads in five to ten years due to poorly trained drivers.

Madam Speaker! We can all be affected by illnesses that can affect our driving ability and lead to a revoked driver's license. Therefore, it is important that there is a uniform way to test whether an illness or impaired vision actually affects the driving ability itself. The Liberals want that it is reviewed so that traffic medical assessments are made in the same way throughout the country. It is also important that the assessments are made in a legally secure manner with reliable methods. It is a subject that has been relevant during the spring regarding tests of long-term high alcohol consumption.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I want to address the announcement that the Liberals initiated four years ago. It concerns persons who are tested for vision and who are found to have visual defects. Their driver's licenses are revoked immediately, without a test. They are not given a fair chance to show whether their driving ability is affected by the visual defect. It is not reasonable. It affects 1,000 people per year. Research shows that half could have kept their driver's licenses. It is therefore with pleasure that I can state that the Transport Agency's review has led to new rules regarding lighter requirements for visual field examinations being introduced on 1 February 2025.

Transportstyrelsen has also received a government mandate to investigate the conditions for driving tests in traffic and the assessment of whether exemptions can be granted for diagnosed visual field loss if it does not affect driving ability. The mandate is to be reported on June 15, 2025. It was a pity that it did not come before this debate.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion: Road safety is an area where Sweden has every reason to be proud. At the same time, much work remains for us to reach the zero vision.

I vote in favor of the committee's proposal for a decision and against all motions.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! The zero vision, which means that no one should be killed or seriously injured in traffic, was adopted by the Riksdag in 1997. That means that the zero vision has existed for nearly 30 years.

When the zero vision was introduced, approximately 500 people died every year in Swedish traffic. That figure has been halved since then. It is a positive development that shows that the work based on the zero vision has yielded results.

But since approximately 2010, the positive development has stalled. The number of people who have died in traffic accidents has since 2010 gone slightly up and down from year to year but has averaged 220 people per year. One can say that we have been on a plateau for 15 years and have not succeeded in breaking the curve further, in the way that is required.

We have heard several previous speakers talk about how Sweden is a world leader, and Sweden is indeed at the forefront when it comes to road safety. But we are not first; that position is held by our neighboring country Norway, which last year had 90 people die in traffic, compared to our figure of 220. Here we definitely have more to learn; we can be inspired by Norway.

Regarding the plateau that I touched upon slightly and that we have been at for 15 years, the Swedish Transport Administration states in its latest follow-up of the development of road safety that it will be very difficult to meet the milestone for 2030 and that extensive measures are required immediately for it to be possible.

Regarding the second focus of the zero vision, that no one should be seriously injured in traffic, the development is going in the wrong direction. The number of seriously injured in traffic has increased. The largest increase is among the seriously injured in the group of unprotected road users. The increase is particularly marked among those who walk or cycle.

Madam Speaker! With the zero vision, a new way of thinking regarding road safety was established. It is based on the idea that the transport system shall be designed in a way that realizes the zero vision. Even though the individual road user always has a great personal responsibility, the ultimate responsibility for realizing the zero vision thus rests with road authorities, vehicle manufacturers, and those who design the transport system.

Then one can ask whether today's transport system is designed in a way that supports the zero vision and what has happened with Swedish infrastructure over the last decades. One thing that has happened is that the condition of the transport infrastructure has become significantly worse. Trafikanalys has repeatedly noted for several years now that both reliability and standard have deteriorated. This, of course, affects traffic safety negatively.

Another factor that influences is which perspective and which focus one has. Since the zero vision was introduced, there has been a strong focus on car traffic. Two-plus-one roads have been built, meeting separation has been introduced, cable barriers and speed cameras have been installed, dangerous intersections have been rebuilt into roundabouts, and so on. This is absolutely not bad – on the contrary. But is it not time to draw conclusions and act considering that it is the unprotected road users who are overrepresented in the damage statistics?

Every year, a large number of pedestrians and cyclists are injured in traffic. Over one-third of those who die in traffic are unprotected road users, despite accounting for a smaller share of the traffic volume. This means that, purely statistically, it is significantly more dangerous to walk or cycle than to drive a car.

That road safety for cyclists despite this is often reduced to a behavioral issue, where cyclists are urged to use bicycle helmets and reflective vests, means that there is indeed a great potential for development. There is, of course, nothing wrong with either bicycle helmets or reflectors, but this shows the need for an updated zero vision where cycling is treated as an independent mode of transport in its own right and where cycling and walking move from being included on a corner to being truly prioritized in both the traffic system and the budget process.

Madam Speaker! Another aspect that has an impact on road safety is the vehicle inspection. AB Svensk Bilprovning was started in 1963 and in the autumn had a nationwide network of 100 stations from Skurup in the south to Gällivare in the north. But how it will look in the future, no one knows. In November last year, the government chose to sell Svensk Bilprovning to a German company.

Now we have a completely deregulated and privatized vehicle inspection in Sweden. This means that the state no longer has the possibility it previously had to exert price pressure through its own company. The risk now, instead, is great that the inspection industry will in a few years be dominated by a few large actors. That is how it usually becomes. We have seen it before. Then also the risk is great that prices will increase and that it will become more expensive for people to inspect their vehicles. The National Audit Office examined in 2021 the deregulation that was made in 2010 and concluded that it has become significantly more expensive after the deregulation. Now we therefore risk further increased prices on vehicle inspection, which is not just any service but the exercise of public authority.

I think it is ironic in this context that the government, in connection with the preparation of the EU's inspection package, had a clear accompanying document where it expressed concern that new requirements and expanded controls could lead to increased costs and higher prices. It seems strange to me how the same government, at one time, when it concerns EU legislation, is worried about price increases, but at another time, when it concerns a deregulation, completely neglects that very same risk. It is incomprehensible to me, but also very telling.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I would like to support the Centre Party's motion regarding mandatory eye examinations in connection with driver's license renewal after a certain age. We also consider that to be important. I also move for approval of reservation number 12.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Malin Östh for the speech. I had to request the floor to discuss road safety, as it is extremely important.

Vänsterpartiet has had a close cooperation with the Social Democrats for many years. During that time, the traffic police have been phased out. I have nagged several times that we need to increase the number of police on the road. Why? Well, we have done very much to keep the different groups of road users apart and keep vehicles apart, so that they cannot meet on heavily trafficked roads. A lot of technical measures have been taken. What needs to be done now concerns behavioral issues of individuals.

The chairman himself pointed out that unprotected road users are overrepresented in the accident statistics. The fact is that cyclists are very careless regarding bicycle helmets. Even if one is standing still on a bicycle and just falls down into the street, one can suffer serious head injuries if one does not have a helmet. Here we have a huge task to do. We need to start already with the schoolchildren, so that they understand the importance of protecting the body.

When you ride a bicycle, you are very vulnerable. I sometimes say a bit ironically – mostly just to get a discussion started – that cyclists have difficulty both reading and seeing colors. They have a very hard time following the legislation and the requirements that are placed on a cyclist. It is about what different road signs mean, traffic lights, and so on. Cyclists are also obliged to follow the regulations. Sometimes cyclists come out from different directions like rockets straight out into the roadway. If they hit a car, it does not need to go particularly fast for them to suffer harm. The difference in weight is so great that a cyclist or pedestrian takes a beating in a collision with a vehicle. Here we have some work to do in terms of knowledge.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I hope the member is being ironic when he expresses himself in this way about cyclists. I think this is somewhat symptomatic of the problem, which I also tried to describe in my speech. People have a completely different view of motorists compared to cyclists and pedestrians. I mean that we need to view these modes of transport in the same way and see cycling as a mode of transport in its own right. Talking about bicycle helmets and reflective vests is not unimportant, but we need to ensure that we protect cyclists and pedestrians in the same way as we protect motorists.

What happened when the zero vision was introduced was a paradigm shift in Swedish traffic safety policy. It was not about focusing on behavior in the way the member describes, but it was about building a system that, even though people make mistakes, shall minimize the risk of injury and the risk of accidents. That was the great shift. What I hear the member say pulls in a completely different direction than what the zero vision aims for.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! The accident statistics speak for themselves. We saw a very steep downward curve when the zero vision was introduced. We got a lot of safety systems in our vehicles. We took measures on roads and so on. It had the effect that the number of those killed and injured in traffic plummeted.

Now we are at a plateau, just as the member himself said. Then one must think a turn further. What does it depend on? The crux is that we have both motorists, cyclists and pedestrians who do not understand their own responsibility out in traffic.

It is when the conflict surfaces meet each other that the accident occurs. I said in my speech that it is the last two seconds before the accident itself occurs that are decisive for what happens.

When moving in traffic, things happen very quickly. If one is not part of the match or not even prepared for something about to happen, and there is then a conflict between a pedestrian and a car or between a cyclist and a car, it almost always ends with serious injuries or fatalities for the unprotected road user.

Here we have a great deal of work to do when it comes to the behavior of individuals. It does not matter what type of vehicle they drive. They must understand their responsibility for the system to function.

We often say somewhat jokingly within the police that fines provide improvement. Fines create an understanding in the individual that one must follow the laws and rules that exist.

I have investigated so many accidents and seen what has been the cause. It is almost always the human who is the cause of them. We can, for the most part, build a tube where things must always move. But you still have the failing link with the individual. That is the last thing we must look at.

Individuals must understand their responsibility. Here, the police have an immensely important role.

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Östh (V)

Madam Speaker! I think, just as I mentioned in my speech, that we can learn from Norway, which has come significantly further in this area. They have reached a point where 90 people died in traffic during the last year. They do not work, as I understand it, with behavioral changes in the way the member expressed it, but they work with other factors. Here I believe there is much to learn. We can look at that together.

As for cyclists and pedestrians, I mean that we need to build a safe system where one is more protected as a cyclist and pedestrian. Here we also know that the country's municipalities responsible for pedestrian and cycle paths describe how they have for a long time had difficulty finding space for safe passages for those who walk or cycle.

There is a huge lack of space in our cities and especially in our larger cities. Here, one has to weigh safety against actual accessibility or actual space. It is also a factor where one could ask: How are we going to be able to solve this?

Could we, by expanding public transport, strengthen the conditions for public transport and reduce congestion in our larger cities and in that way achieve a protective effect for vulnerable road users such as cyclists and those who walk? It is an aspect where the government and Sverigedemokraterna have no proposals whatsoever.

The number of accidents for pedestrians is skyrocketing. These are so-called single accidents. They are fall accidents. People fall when they are out walking. From the municipalities' side, it has been said that they have difficulty finding the financial room to keep their sidewalks well-maintained. These are uneven sidewalks, there is deficient ice control, etcetera.

Here, one also needs to reflect from a national level. What responsibility do we have? How can we join forces with municipalities and regions to strengthen the security for these groups?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating report TU14, which concerns road safety. I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 1 regarding motion 22.

Sweden is a pioneer when it comes to road safety. Many have been involved in this today. We have also highlighted Norway as perhaps an even better pioneer. This applies in particular to the number of people who die from things other than traffic accidents, for example, traffic pollution. There are many electric cars in Norway.

It is 200–300 who die in traffic accidents in Sweden. I do not share Member Morell's opinion that we should separate traffic accidents and those who die from traffic. It is 7,000 who have a shortened life because we have motoring in the wrong way in some cases. These must be linked.

I can take an example. In Örnsköldsvik, we have the E4 which passes by Övik. We have a roundabout right in the middle of Övik where we have some of the country's worst air qualities. We must, of course, take responsibility for the increased number of deaths resulting from that. It does not only apply in such a case. There are ring roads that many times do not go far enough outside the communities. That also affects the air quality.

Sharp measures were needed here. We have 200–300 and 7,000 who die because of our traffic environment. It is a very heavy part. When it comes to the traffic environment, perhaps this government will not, but perhaps some other government in the future will better stimulate electric cars and create a better traffic environment.

Electric cars will, despite everything, generate fewer pollutants into the environment but not remove all of them. Much is torn up by studded tires. There are other parts of the asphalt that are unfavorable for air quality.

The inertia in improving air quality means that it takes a long time. Often, the municipalities are not capable of allocating resources to address those issues. In Övik's case, they have been working on it for 40 years to resolve it.

There are other traffic solutions. Today, they are not even included in the national plan. In that case, I do not believe that the risk of ill health is being weighed in the right way. My plea to the sitting government is: Take the low-hanging fruit and the worst cases, such as that in Ö-vik, and do something now.

Another similar part concerns wildlife damage. They do not always lead to fatal accidents, but they cause a lot of concern. It states in our underlying material that there are 49,000 wildlife accidents. This means a lot of wasted time, insurance damages, downtime, and impact on society.

Here, there are obviously other mechanisms that are supposed to provide hunting pressure and so on. The problem today is that hunters at the major roads do not always want to use their dogs. We have 200–300 dogs that die in accidents where traffic is involved when hunting is being conducted.

This is complex. One must, as I mentioned earlier, try to see as much of the whole as possible.

Another important matter is the work that has been done. I will give credit to the government. We have the same goal of securing the possibility to continue using A-tractors and to obtain a traffic-safe solution for that type of vehicle. We are not far enough ahead when it comes to the 45-kilometer limit.

There are still some things to polish regarding road safety. On an A-tractor today, for example, the LGF sign is placed very low. I, who have driven quite a lot of agricultural equipment and tractors, know that there are regulations stating that the sign should be placed significantly higher. It cannot do that on an A-tractor.

However, similar to what applies to an agricultural tractor, it should be possible to set up warning lights or a mixer, so that one can see the A-tractor. One certainly sees the A-tractor as the first car, but the problem is that one does not see that it is an A-tractor on the road when one arrives as car number two or three. It is a very large risk of accident.

I and the Centre Party believe that it should be possible for four people to be belted in an A-tractor. We are also now pushing to get 45 kilometers. The tractor is an important vehicle for our youth, not least for those who live where there is no public transport.

The accident statistics are positive, as it is only two people in A-tractors and moped cars who have died during 2023 and 2024. And then we do not even know what has been the cause – whether it is the A-tractor or some other vehicle.

Madam Speaker! As a conclusion: A driving license is important, and it is also important that it is smooth. Of course, one must update and improve the driving license according to the time one lives in. That we do not have electronic driving licenses today, when we can have everything else electronically, I simply think is bad. An electronic driving license would mean very much for the smoothness.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I was mentioned in the debate, so I felt prompted to request the floor.

C has actually been involved in developing the plan that applies now, regarding the deficiencies experienced in, among other places, Ö-vik. Currently, work is being done on the upcoming plan, and we will have to see what comes out of it. I am aware of the problems in Ö-vik; they have been known for many years. It is difficult to get through the city, especially if one is driving heavy vehicles. It is clear that it also affects the urban environment when the entire traffic flow goes through the center.

One could solve this very simply by blasting through a mountain in two kilometers. It might not sound so simple, but it has been done before, so it cannot be that remarkable.

When it comes to statistics, one must keep the different concepts separate. When we talk about deaths in traffic, it concerns those who perish in traffic accidents. Suicides are removed from this statistic and are therefore not included in the picture. Why should one then keep the concepts separate? Yes, it is because one must be able to take the right measures and make the right decisions. That we then have air quality that can affect people is another matter. There, one has other measurements that one must rely on and then take measures.

In road traffic, there has been a dramatic change for the better in recent years, but of course, there is still more to be done. In order to be able to make the right decisions, however, it is necessary that one looks at the right statistics and makes decisions based on them. One must not mix statistics, because then it becomes crazy.

In this speech, Sara-Lena Bjälkö (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! We agree that we are going to do something in Ö-vik; I hear that. We think it is a low-hanging fruit. If I am correctly informed, this has even been included in the national plan, but it is not right now. If we can help each other in getting this in order, that is good.

As I said in my speech, one must put these things together. One should keep the statistics separate – that is completely correct – but one must simultaneously put them together in order to be able to achieve wise traffic solutions and a wise whole. And that is not achieved when one separates these things.

Thomas Morell mentioned smoking on another occasion. It is precisely smoking in combination with traffic pollution that becomes an extra serious cocktail. Therefore, one must also include that information to understand the whole.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Thomas Morell (SD)

Madam Speaker! I have worked with statistics, especially regarding traffic accidents, because I have worked with traffic issues for many years and followed the development.

It could be about something such as using a seat belt. In the investigations we conducted, we found that if there were no medical reasons in the background, half of those who did not use a seat belt survived the collision.

It is these kinds of things one sees if one delves a bit into the statistics and looks at what can be done to reach the goal of reducing the number of deaths in traffic. One must focus on exactly those points where there are problems and not come up with sweeping formulations and statistics that do not lead to the result one wants. This is extremely important in order to be able to allocate resources where they do the most good.

I will conclude by saying something about the A-tractors. It is a concern with the rear-end collisions. One does not see the A-tractor because the sign is dirty. It might also be dark and hazy and so on. A juice mixer could be a solution, but it could lead to another concern. It flashes a bit everywhere, and the driver loses respect for the juice mixer and the function it has: to warn of a piece of work equipment on the road.

I therefore do not see just that part as a solution. But one can look at something else to alert other road users that there is a slow-moving vehicle further ahead on the road. It should then be something that is visible when weather conditions are at their worst. So it is not that today, but the sign is by far too poorly designed and is also located in the wrong place. In combination with bad weather, this leads to the accident lurking around the corner.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Karlsson (C)

Madam Speaker! Member of Parliament Thomas Morell returns to the point that one must not mix up statistics. I stubbornly assert that one must see the whole to be able to achieve the right traffic solutions. It could, for example, be about a different traffic solution, such as up in Ö-vik, but it could also be about how a ring road is designed.

This is related to both traffic and other things. I believe we will be able to manage to keep the different concepts separate and what causes fatal accidents, other accidents and so on. We must include the whole.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Linus Lakso (MP)

Madam Speaker! This is a subject that perhaps touches some of us extra much. About 20 years ago, I lost a close friend, a childhood friend, in a traffic accident. Everyone who has lost a friend or a relative knows what that grief is.

Therefore, every person who is killed in or by traffic is one too many. We have come a good way when it comes to road safety in Sweden, but we are far from the goal. More needs to be done, not least when it comes to protecting unprotected road users.

The zero vision means that no one should be killed or seriously injured as a result of traffic accidents. It has been an important part of Swedish traffic policy. Just like several others have been mentioned, it would however need to be broadened, because traffic, as we know, does not only cause death and injury in the immediate traffic situation but also causes increased mortality and diseases through particles, noise, and emissions.

As also mentioned by previous speakers, nearly 7,000 people die prematurely annually due to poor air quality, while 200–300 people – 210 last year, to be exact – are killed instantly in traffic annually.

Madam Speaker! That is why I believe that the zero vision in the area of road safety needs to be complemented with an ambitious goal to also reduce the number of deaths from traffic. The goal should therefore be to significantly reduce the number of deaths both in and from traffic.

Many important things have been mentioned during the debate – reducing the number of people who drive while intoxicated, the traffic environment, safety tests concerning both women and men, wildlife fences, separated lanes and so on. I would also like to point out that maintaining speed is one of the best ways to reduce the number of accidents in traffic. Therefore, I welcome Trafikverket's proposal to develop the automatic traffic safety controls to be able to monitor speed along stretches. If everyone maintained the speed, we would save an additional 50 lives in traffic every year.

Swedish municipalities should also need to be granted extended powers regarding regulatory compliance in traffic. A municipality has the right to decide on the speeds on municipal streets and roads, but the municipality may then not itself ensure that the rules are followed. What is available are physical speed bumps or waiting for the police. I mean that the municipalities could be granted an extended right to set up their own traffic monitoring cameras and integrate them with the police's systems to facilitate the monitoring of regulatory compliance. It would also make the traffic environment safer for unprotected road users such as cyclists and pedestrians if speeds were maintained at a lower level to a greater extent.

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet naturally stands behind all its reservations in the report. I have spoken a lot about what is stated in reservation 1, which I have already moved for approval, but I also move for approval of reservation 5.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 10 June.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)